No, this would violate Article IV, Section 4.
If you announced that Virginia and South Carolina formed an alliance to prevent imports from New York should the Federal government accept that?
No, this would violate Article I, Section 10.
Illegal actions are not to be ignored.
Indeed. And if the Federal government attempts an illegal action, I believe that true patriots should oppose it, peacefully, if it is possible. This is what Virginia did in 1861.
And while we are on the subject how can you claim that the actions of the southern states in 1861 were 'popular acts' when only Texas of the original 7 states submitted the matter to a referendum?
State Conventions represent the embodied sovereignty of the people of that State and are elected for that purpose. Would also claim that the State Conventions that ratified the Constitution were not popular? Wouldn’t you proposition undermine the legitimacy of the Constitution itself?
Jurisdiction over what was Constitutional and what was not was granted to the Supreme Court and every state knew that when they ratified it or accepted it as condition of statehood.
Au contraire, mon ami. Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island declared in their ratification declarations explicitly that the powers delegated could be recalled.
And according to the Supreme Court the Union was permenant and unbreakable except with the agreement of 2/3rds of the parties involved. Chase made that clear in his decision.
You know very well that Chase’s decision was a post-war one and could have no relevance to a discussion of pre-war constitutional debate.
Nobody is saying that a state or state cannot leave the Union. But it must be done within the framework of the laws that all parties agreed to. And that framework is Article V.
If what you say here is true, then why didn‘t the Union become established for all States once nine States had ratified the Constitution?
Two questions for you. When exactly did the Union become perpetual and indivisible? And is it possible for there to be an unconstitutional act if the President, the Congress, and the Supreme Court all say its constitutional?
Respectfully,
D J White
"That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, ought to be exempted, upon payment of an equivalent, to employ another to bear arms in his stead."
I'm not aware of that being granted. New York made the following declaration known:
" That standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power."
That hasn't come to pass, either. Virginia copied New York in the prohibition against standing armies and Rhode Island in the payment of substitutes.
All these clauses were included in the same sections were the states claimed the right to take back power. None are law because the Congress has authorized standing armies and the practice of paying substitutes was not allowed in any recent conscription. And the Supreme Court has upheld these practices as legal.
The ratification documents, the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence are all importent papers in our nation's history and all also share the same thing. None of them trump the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all the states agreed with that. And the Constitution vests in the Supreme Court the duty to interpret the Constitution and determine what is legal and what is not. Not the states. Not the ratification documents. Not you. Not me.
The decision in Texas v. White is valid because the central issue was whether or not the Texas articles of secession were legal in 1861. The court ruled that they were not and it matters not if the ruling came in 1869, 1879 or 1999. The Supreme Court rules on cases when they come before them regardless of how long it takes.
Your last question makes no sense. "...is it possible for there to be an unconstitutional act if the President, the Congress, and the Supreme Court all say its constitutional?" Who says that it is unconstitutional? If the congress say it's constitutional and the president says it's constitutional then that doesn't matter. If the Supreme Court rules on the Constitutionality of the act then that is the deciding factor. The fact that you believe it to be unconstitutional is irrelevant.